A TALE OF ONE PLACE FROM TWO PERSPECTIVES: COMPARING UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ RESPONSES TO DIFFERENT WRITTEN WORKS ABOUT THE GRAND CANYON

Porphyry. Boudinage. Pseudotachylite. Ask students in an introductory geology course if they know what these words mean, and you will likely find that they are as unfamiliar as those from a foreign language. And these are just a few of the complex terms that permeate geosciences. Jargon may be highly specific and provide efficient ways for professionals to communicate ideas to their peers, yet for students new to the world of scientific writing, jargon is a well-known barrier to learning. Different strategies are useful in addressing this barrier, such as: 1) Teach introductory science through plain-language explanations; 2) Embed scientific content in place-based pedagogy; and 3) Use science-based short stories or historical narratives. In this pilot study, we draw on these existing frameworks to investigate undergraduate students’ responses to scientific text that humanizes the geology of a place.

Specifically, we compare students’ responses to two different text passages that are both about the Grand Canyon. One segment comes from a book called “Trace: Memory, History, Race, and the American Landscape” by Dr. Lauret Savoy. The second comes from the book, “Roadside Geology of Arizona” written by Dr. Halka Chronic. Both texts address the geologic history and structure of the Grand Canyon. Yet Savoy’s memoir considers what it means to be present, not only for her, but in the context of the human history in that place. Participants were either students enrolled in introductory Earth science courses or were undergraduate geology majors. The interview protocol included asking questions about participants’ experiences and perspective on the Grand Canyon before and after they read a given passage as well as assessing their responses to the Place Attachment Survey (Young, 1999; Semken, 2009). In this presentation, we share preliminary results, highlighting students’ mixed reactions to the two texts. We also reflect on the initial research design and consider steps for further development.